Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Comfort Dogs
I love the idea of these beautiful dogs comforting the children affected by the Newtown shooting.
Monday, December 17, 2012
Sunday, December 9, 2012
All Bo, All The Time
Well, not really, but I'm on a bit of a doggie kick this morning, so I'm posting a couple of cute videos of the first dog. First we have Bo in bunny ears:
Then he goes into full-on Christmas Elf mode:
Woof!
Then he goes into full-on Christmas Elf mode:
Woof!
Friday, December 7, 2012
Still "Over-Egging The Pudding"
I've always loved "Les Miserables". I saw it on stage in Chicago in the early 1990's and I've listened to the CD soundtrack probably 1,000 times. (Although, full disclosure, I've never actually read the book...) Anyway, I'm looking forward to seeing the new movie, based on the stage play, so I was enjoying the positive review in the British paper The Telegraph. They like the film, great, and I was just reading along when there it was, in the last paragraph, another use of my new favorite expression, "over-egging the pudding." My first exposure to this charmingly British idiom was in an article about Paul Ryan's exaggerated marathon time, which I linked to last August. Now here it is again, this time slightly abbreviated and referring to "comic book camera angles." I'm still waiting for the perfect opportunity to use it in a sentence.
Wednesday, December 5, 2012
"We Deeply Regret The Incident..."
Wow. There's a nurse at the King Edward VII hospital in London who's now having a very bad day.
Update: This really is embarrassing for the hospital and the nurse involved, because now that I've heard part of the tape, all I can say is "What was she thinking?" That Australian DJ doesn't sound even a little bit like the real queen. And someone was barking in the background, pretending to be a corgi? Hopefully this nurse has more medical expertise than her apparently minimal common sense and discretion.
Another thought: I was continuing to ponder how a nurse could possibly have mistaken an Australian DJ for the Queen of England when it occurred to me that mistaken identity isn't the real screw up. Even if the caller had been the actual Queen, it's still not OK to disclose confidential information about a patient over the phone to an extended family member without permission from the patient. How can a nurse with enough experience to care for a senior member of the royal family not know that?
Update: This really is embarrassing for the hospital and the nurse involved, because now that I've heard part of the tape, all I can say is "What was she thinking?" That Australian DJ doesn't sound even a little bit like the real queen. And someone was barking in the background, pretending to be a corgi? Hopefully this nurse has more medical expertise than her apparently minimal common sense and discretion.
Another thought: I was continuing to ponder how a nurse could possibly have mistaken an Australian DJ for the Queen of England when it occurred to me that mistaken identity isn't the real screw up. Even if the caller had been the actual Queen, it's still not OK to disclose confidential information about a patient over the phone to an extended family member without permission from the patient. How can a nurse with enough experience to care for a senior member of the royal family not know that?
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
Elizabeth, George, Diana, William... What To Name The Baby?
The royal baby news is getting saturation coverage in the media, no surprise, with speculation about everything from when we'll see the first picture of Kate's baby bump to the actual due date to could it possibly be twins? One of the big questions is what to name the baby when he/she finally arrives. This article includes some fun possibilities, but I didn't decide to link to it until I noticed that it has a couple of significant errors. Come on, Today show! Don't you have a fact checker?
In the "George" section it says that the Queen's grandfather (George the fifth) led the nation through World War one, which is technically true, but it seems to me that George is a hot prospect for the baby's name because of the Queen's father (George the sixth) who lead the nation through World War two. The second mistake is just plain careless. In the "Philip" section, the writer describes Prince Philip, the baby's great-grandfather, as the "wife" of the reigning Queen. Really? NBC, don't you have anyone who can catch this stuff?
In the "George" section it says that the Queen's grandfather (George the fifth) led the nation through World War one, which is technically true, but it seems to me that George is a hot prospect for the baby's name because of the Queen's father (George the sixth) who lead the nation through World War two. The second mistake is just plain careless. In the "Philip" section, the writer describes Prince Philip, the baby's great-grandfather, as the "wife" of the reigning Queen. Really? NBC, don't you have anyone who can catch this stuff?
Monday, December 3, 2012
The Royal Baby
I read that when the future King Edward VIII was born, in 1894, royal historians noted that it was the first time in British history that there were three generations of living heirs in the direct line of succession to the throne: Edward's father (future King George V) and his grandfather (future King Edward VII) were both alive and kicking, along with his great-grandmother, Queen Victoria herself. Assuming there are no monarchical disasters between now and next summer, the same situation will be in effect when the next royal baby is born, who will be the child of Prince William, the grandchild of Prince Charles and the great-grandchild of Queen Elizabeth.
Just a little royal trivia as my way of saying congratulations to Will and Kate on the announcement of her pregnancy. For me the most interesting part of the announcement is that there's been a significant change in the rules concerning the succession. Historically boys took precedence over girls, regardless of birth order, but the British government and commonwealth are in the process of updating that rule, so if the first-born child is a girl, she'll get to keep her place at the head of the line, even if a brother shows up at some point in the future. (More trivia: When the current Queen's father became King after the abdication of his elder brother in 1936, 10-year-old Princess Elizabeth is said to have started fervently praying for a brother, so she wouldn't have to be Queen.) The rule change is only fitting - after the Queen's exemplary 60-year reign, who could possibly look at a newborn princess and mutter "too bad it wasn't a boy."
For what it's worth, most of the top tier royal women in the recent past, including the Queen, Princess Margaret, Princess Anne, the duchesses of Kent and Gloucester, Princess Alexandra, Princess Michael of Kent and Princess Diana, all had boys first. That doesn't mean that Kate will, too, however, and for right now I'm kind of hoping she has a girl. Now that they're actually changing the archaic boys-first rule, it would be fun to have a girl show up and actually benefit from the change.
And when will the new baby actually get to be King or Queen? If Prince William lives to be 85, it won't be until 2067 and there's a lot to think about in the meantime. As People magazine put it in their November 23, 1981 cover story announcing Di's first pregnancy, "Nannies, nappies, names and Lord knows what all..." Let the pink and blue celebrating begin!
Just a little royal trivia as my way of saying congratulations to Will and Kate on the announcement of her pregnancy. For me the most interesting part of the announcement is that there's been a significant change in the rules concerning the succession. Historically boys took precedence over girls, regardless of birth order, but the British government and commonwealth are in the process of updating that rule, so if the first-born child is a girl, she'll get to keep her place at the head of the line, even if a brother shows up at some point in the future. (More trivia: When the current Queen's father became King after the abdication of his elder brother in 1936, 10-year-old Princess Elizabeth is said to have started fervently praying for a brother, so she wouldn't have to be Queen.) The rule change is only fitting - after the Queen's exemplary 60-year reign, who could possibly look at a newborn princess and mutter "too bad it wasn't a boy."
For what it's worth, most of the top tier royal women in the recent past, including the Queen, Princess Margaret, Princess Anne, the duchesses of Kent and Gloucester, Princess Alexandra, Princess Michael of Kent and Princess Diana, all had boys first. That doesn't mean that Kate will, too, however, and for right now I'm kind of hoping she has a girl. Now that they're actually changing the archaic boys-first rule, it would be fun to have a girl show up and actually benefit from the change.
And when will the new baby actually get to be King or Queen? If Prince William lives to be 85, it won't be until 2067 and there's a lot to think about in the meantime. As People magazine put it in their November 23, 1981 cover story announcing Di's first pregnancy, "Nannies, nappies, names and Lord knows what all..." Let the pink and blue celebrating begin!
Sunday, December 2, 2012
Creativity
I'm not sure what the cosmic significance of this is, but it struck me as creative and entertaining. Enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
